I keep posting this, and everyone seems quite content to ignore it and pretend like there is no other logical way of concluding the movie

Here it is again though, just for you!

Basically, this is how it could have gone:

1. Make it clearer that the plan is to send the Kryptonians back to the prizon they had been sentanced to on Krypton. Actually SAY that.

2. Only have one world engine, which is over Metropolis.

3. Still have the military and Lois go after the world engine with the PZ plan and baby's ship on board, but have Supes job be to go after Zod when the military confirm that he is not on the ship.

4. Have him confront Zod in the scout ship, have the same exchange about Krypton having it's chance and Supes destroying the ship with his heat vision, but have him destroy it from the outside and ,with great effort guide it into the river we see it pass over in the movie... rather than just allowing it to smash through buildings in Metropolis.

5. Then both Supes and Zod rise up from the ruins of the ship, Zod gives his pissed off speech about what he just cost him (the genesis chamber still signifies a great loss for him), and then we see them duke it out, but with Supes constantly having the PZ in mind when choosing which direction to fly in/punch him towards, but finding it incredibly difficult to force the direction of the fight.

6. At this point we've still got the other kryptonians in Black Zero, Faora attacking the plane, as well as Jenny trapped about to die with Perry holding her hand.

All of that culminates in this scene, which is somethinf I thought would be great since first discussion the movie, similar to the one we got with a very different ending.

Supes and Zod end up in a street full of people watching in horror. Zod keeps trying to go after people, and Supes just about manages to stop him each time. Finally, he has him beat, in the head lock, ready for that killing blow, when zod says 'you'll have to kill me to stop me!'

And then there is this moment, where you can see how much he wants to. And he's looking at the Black Zero, with the army plane not far from reaching it now, knowing the odds of him actually getting Zod there are pretty slim.

But he looks up at the people watching, just everyday citizens, families, a little girl holding a teddy bear covered in ash... (maybe even a young ginger kid taking pictues) and he realises what killing Zod, especially in front of all these people, would mean... that if they saw that, they'd never trust him again and he'd be sending out a message he just doesn't want to send - and so the anger starts to fall from his face, replaced by determination. He knows what he has to do.

At which point he says 'No, Zod. You're a criminal, and you belong back in the prizon you came from.'

So he puts everything he has into flying towards Black Zero, arm still around Zod's neck. And you can see them both struggling, and Zod trying to pull away as he's realised the implications of what that means, but Superman is putting as much effort into this flight (as he did the destruction of the World Enginge in the actual film... enough to make him scream with just the same effort). And it's only at just the last minute that Zod manages to break free of his grip, but it's too late. They are close enough to the plane crashing into the ship for Superman to super punch him into the Phantom Zone as it begins to emerge, with one last lingering shot of him struggling to not be sucked in.

It starts to pull on Superman then too, but that's when he sees Lois falling to her death, and it gives him that extra incentive to drag himself out of the pull of the Zone in order to catch her.

Que the 'He saved all of us' line, the kiss, and subsequant scenes.

Would that have really been so difficult to make work?

I would've loved to have seen something like this.

Quote:

Because it sucks BOTH times.

Why do people keep assuming that no one hated it in Superman 2 (or the vaious other comic storylines in which similar things have occured), and therefore anyone who doesn't like it in MOS must be a hypocrite.

I can only speak from myself, but I hate ALL of those instances. And there are much fewer of those instances than examples of Superman choosing NOT to kill.

Agreed. It's funnier too when you find out they actually filmed Zod and co. being arrested to.

It's like when people bring up the Doomsday DTV (if I remember correctly on the commentary they joked that the buildings were empty) or him punching Darkseid at the end of JL/JLU. I didn't like the possible deaths there too.

Agreed. It's funnier too when you find out they actually filmed Zod and co. being arrested to.

It's like when people bring up the Doomsday DTV (if I remember correctly on the commentary they joked that the buildings were empty) or him punching Darkseid at the end of JL/JLU. I didn't like the possible deaths there too.

Yeah, it's sooooo much better with them being arrested.

And I agree. The only reason people aren't/weren't more vocal about it there is because it's 'just' and animated DTV movie.

With this, it's what everyone in the GA is going to see. It has a HUGE effect on the future perception of the character and his ideals. It has a much much bigger impact.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

Remember that time Superman killed the alternate universe Zod in the comics, along with his minions? It's not like this hasn't happened before.

i was okay with it. I don't see how it could have ended otherwise, unless Superman just let that family die to continue fighting Zod into a portal (maybe).

I swear, it's like talking to a brick wall *sigh*

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

And I agree. The only reason people aren't/weren't more vocal about it there is because it's 'just' and animated DTV movie.

With this, it's what everyone in the GA is going to see. It has a HUGE effect on the future perception of the character and his ideals. It has a much much bigger impact.

It helps deal with the WTF? moment plenty of people had when it happened since nothing in the films showed us that Superman and Lois were the type of people to kill with smiles on their faces.

True the animated form helps lesson the "reality" of what's happening in those situations, so there's a disconnect.

I'm interested in seeing what all this death from Superman will do in the future. With MOS, comics, and video games some future writers out there could end up changing the character. I mean look at Johns and all his love for Donnerverse and Mortal Kombat.

But I go to the cinema, especially within this genre, and within the context of a Superman film, to watch heroes win.

Let me restate, sometimes heroes don't win everything and the kitchen sink with the bad guy locked away in jail and time reversing powers to boot.
Like TDK, batman saved the day but he didn't not only did he not get the girl but she died.

To argue that superman conflicts need to be handled with a bow and ribbon mentality and execution is in my opinion, weak and antiquated. "Everything is easy for him" is something that a great deal of the materials critics and audience have been saying for years, I for one think a dose of reality is a good thing for the material regardless of what a select few people go to this sort of cinema for, they've tried that sort of film in the past and not enough of these types of people showed up.

Quote:

I wouldn't call it more ambitious, but yes Spidey is a very different creature than Superman, and his stories have gone to some very dark places - the kind of places you only go with Superman in AU stories.

Not talking about the dark places spidey can go that superman doesn't(for some reason) in his regular continuity, I was talking about the idea that spiderman faces tough human decisions and almost never always wins entirely.
Superman not winning entirely would be an improvement in the criteria of character dimensionality and pathos.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

No one is arguing that Superman hasn't killed before. I don't really see how a handful of times is a great defense for it.

Technically it shows that the character the film is based on, has done similar if not worse when placed in a similar position. Whether you like the story or not, it in itself falls into the character make up.

We know batman doesn't kill because of his canon.
We know superman does because of his.

Not sure how this is technically a bad defense.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Let me restate, sometimes heroes don't win everything and the kitchen sink with the bad guy locked away in jail and time reversing powers to boot.
Like TDK, batman saved the day but he didn't not only did he not get the girl but she died.

To argue that superman conflicts need to be handled with a bow and ribbon mentality and execution is in my opinion, weak and antiquated. "Everything is easy for him" is something that a great deal of the materials critics and audience have been saying for years, I for one think a dose of reality is a good thing for the material regardless of what a select few people go to this sort of cinema for, they've tried that sort of film in the past and not enough of these types of people showed up.

I never said it shouldn't be hard for him to win. I just said he should win.

You can put him through the wringer, you can deal with so much within the story, but it's all about how he OVERCOMES it, defies the odds, finds a way.

As for comparing the darkness in a Superman to the darkness in a Batman story... that's the point. Batman's stories are supposed to be darker. Batman is a pretty damn unhappy character.

That's not Superman.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

Technically it shows that the character the film is based on, has done similar if not worse when placed in a similar position. Whether you like the story or not, it in itself falls into the character make up.

We know batman doesn't kill because of his canon.
We know superman does because of his.

Not sure how this is technically a bad defense.

Because Batman has never killed in the comics?

It's about what's been consistent and considered a staple part of the character for a long time.

__________________

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

Technically it shows that the character the film is based on, has done similar if not worse when placed in a similar position. Whether you like the story or not, it in itself falls into the character make up.

We know batman doesn't kill because of his canon.
We know superman does because of his.

Not sure how this is technically a bad defense.

I don't see how that works since those times he did kill, plenty of people went WTF? because they know Superman, the guy who started it all, doesn't really roll like that. Might as well say it's fine if certain things happen no matter how bad, dumb, silly, whatever because years ago one story had them.

Pretty much the same reason why people go WTF? when Batman kills or carries guns. But, I'll admit that I pretty much laugh at the idea of Batman with guns, which was what I did with the recent Flashpoint Paradox DTV.

I don't see how that works since those times he did kill, plenty of people went WTF? because they know Superman, the guy who started it all, doesn't really roll like that. Might as well say it's fine if certain things happen no matter how bad, dumb, silly, whatever because years ago one story had them.

When batman kissed a woman "plenty of people went wtf" cause he didn't roll like that.(not that he's gay but rather he's about his work).
What do I care if some people's preconceptions were shocked when the character(by way of the editors that have always been responsible for his official characterization) expanded on their fiction.
People being shocked doesn't change what a character is. This wasn't him just deciding to kill lois, it was him with is back against a wall and saving people best he could(in both instances).

Quote:

Pretty much the same reason why people go WTF? when Batman kills or carries guns. But, I'll admit that I pretty much laugh at the idea of Batman with guns, which was what I did with the recent Flashpoint Paradox DTV.

No, it's why when batman kills(like in his last three films) people understand the gravity of the situation and the characters position. Batman all of a sudden behaving like wolverine or even tory stark all of a sudden is when you get the WTF's.
Same with superman(even though this movie is very much sold as a year one and we all ignore that bold fact), what he did put the situation and the characters position on the stand. It's why he didn't just make out with his half naked girlfriend(ie IM3) but cried. Heroes with no kill policies, don't contradict that by killing, they contradict that by breaking their ideals. They do what they can within their realm of powers, otherwise batman would lose sleep over the millions of gotham deaths he's "caused" and the deaths of his various partners. They do what they can. And yes even Batman has ended life for the greater good, go read some of his jla stories.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Because him killing Zod could make for interesting story development in the future. Sometimes, there is no other option, killing is the only way. I really don't see why Superman shouldn't have to deal with this scenario at least once, especially when he's still a novice.

I never said it shouldn't be hard for him to win. I just said he should win.

You can put him through the wringer, you can deal with so much within the story, but it's all about how he OVERCOMES it, defies the odds, finds a way.

It was hard, he had to kill zod, didn't seem to easy on his soul to me.
The planet was saved 9 billion lives..etc.
Seems for you to consider it a proper superman win, zod needs to live as well?
I say this struggle to victory is that human struggle element the property needs, not just for itself but in this landscape where all the other characters in this genre are facing similar struggles.

Quote:

As for comparing the darkness in a Superman to the darkness in a Batman story... that's the point. Batman's stories are supposed to be darker. Batman is a pretty damn unhappy character.

That's not Superman.

Well when I suggest lois die, then perhaps we should have that discussion, I brought up the batman plot in an attempt to convey an instance of a hero not winning completely and it adding to the experience, both for the hero and the audience. Like I said, batman won but not in the bow and ribbon sort of way.

Quote:

Because Batman has never killed in the comics?

Not sure if this is a question or sarcasm?
When I said that I very much meant his mantra. We get his mantra from canon.

Quote:

It's about what's been consistent and considered a staple part of the character for a long time.

Subjective.
Sounds more like picking and choosing and selective outrage imo. I like Ned stark, I don't like certain things about him. When they make a new movie about him, and they convey a wide range of his character depths and willingness to go for the greater good, I will curse them for not simply showing the parts of the character I champion and nothing more. I will also accuse them from not telling a "ned stark" story.

It would be different(in a way) if superman just started killing in the 52 series. Or with this film alone, he's done it in two other films by my estimation.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

If MOS 2 is going to be a World's Finest, then Batman can be his shrink. imagine Superman lying on a couch "I'm so scared. Scared of being in that situation where people die because I fail to act. Because I swear, I will never take another life".

Bat-shrink: "oh ffs Clark you will do what you have to do. But the main thing is; don't go kissing your girl in the devastation, that really went down badly with the public. At least look around first and shed a tear or something if you absolutely can't help it. If people couldn't understand the sex scene in Watchmen, you don't stand a chance here."

Its no disrespect to farmers, but I don't think they can wax poetic to Superman about the essence of life and morality. In STM it was JorEl that taught Superman that.

If Jonathan Kent was in the military before as a farmer then I can see where Clark gets his sense of morality as a warrior. Jonathan could adequately explain what killing does.

But as a regular farmer I don't think he would be upset at his son for killing Zod to save the world.

I don't even know what to say to that kind of ignorant statement accept that you obviously do not know a lot about the history of Jonathon and Martha Kent as characters, and how they have been portrayed in countless interpretations to do EXACTLY that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

It was hard, he had to kill zod, didn't seem to easy on his soul to me.
The planet was saved 9 billion lives..etc.Seems for you to consider it a proper superman win, zod needs to live as well?

I say this struggle to victory is that human struggle element the property needs, not just for itself but in this landscape where all the other characters in this genre are facing similar struggles.

Your damn right, that is how I feel. Or at least die by his own doing, and not by Superman snapping his neck.

It's not like I want Superman to talk him out of it and redeem him and for them to become best buds. I don't know why having Superman not kill means everything is wrapped in a pretty pink bow.

A lot of people still died. There is still a lot of peices to pick up, guilt to deal with, confusion to work through.

But in the scenario I suggested, he wouldn't have been defeated. He would have DEFIED Zod's assertion that the only way out of this was to kill him.

Everyone keeps saying that Zod was TRYING to get Supes to kill him, because he wanted to die, and I agree with that completely.

Which is why I feel like Superman killing him is Zod winning.

He basically forced him to give in to his demands.

What a way to end a Superman movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

Well when I suggest lois die, then perhaps we should have that discussion, I brought up the batman plot in an attempt to convey an instance of a hero not winning completely and it adding to the experience, both for the hero and the audience. Like I said, batman won but not in the bow and ribbon sort of way.

You brought up an example of a Batman plot in which he experiances yet another great loss in his life.

Which is something Bruce has a lot of, in most incarnations.

Superman is different, his stories are different. And you don't have to pollute his world with tragedy, death and destruction in order for it to be a compelling story. You don't have to make him or his story more like Batman's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

Not sure if this is a question or sarcasm?
When I said that I very much meant his mantra. We get his mantra from canon.

I was pointing out that Superman and Batman's mantra's BOTH come from canon. But they have BOTH also had examples within that canon in which that mantra was broken.

My point is that those instances don't erase the mantra.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

Subjective.
Sounds more like picking and choosing and selective outrage imo. I like Ned stark, I don't like certain things about him. When they make a new movie about him, and they convey a wide range of his character depths and willingness to go for the greater good, I will curse them for not simply showing the parts of the character I champion and nothing more. I will also accuse them from not telling a "ned stark" story.

It would be different(in a way) if superman just started killing in the 52 series. Or with this film alone, he's done it in two other films by my estimation.

I could go away and attempt to count as many Superman stories as I can in which Superman HAS a no kill policy, so that I could show you how insignificant a blip in the 'canon' the few instances in which he HAS broken that code are (and the differences in the aftermath to what we have here).

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

Your damn right, that is how I feel. Or at least die by his own doing, and not by Superman snapping his neck.

It's not like I want Superman to talk him out of it and redeem him and for them to become best buds. I don't know why having Superman not kill means everything is wrapped in a pretty pink bow.

Because it presents a level of conflict surmountable to it's resolution. A good example being Doomsday. Superman died defeating him because doomsday was a certain level of threat(can't killed etc).
To defeat the villain and eat a snickers and pose for the key to the city ceremony and capture a few selfies on instagram and all that good stuff transverse along the spectrum to a lesser threat level. Especially if that threat isn't cerebral.
A story where superman punching the villain juggernaunt(when properly written) in this instance, into submission won't end and he'll have to make some big decisions.

Quote:

Superman is different, his stories are different. And you don't have to pollute his world with tragedy, death and destruction in order for it to be a compelling story. You don't have to make him or his story more like Batman's.

I assume we are still taking about the conflict resolution in MOS here, but to win a battle at a cost isn't an exclusive trait to the batman stories. Given how few films we've gotten for superman I don't see how exploring one of his lesser wins is all that detrimental to his filmography. I'm not suggesting Kingdom come here, and I'm not suggesting superman fail to save the planet, or even lose Lois.
I look to the film and I see superman having to compromise and strengthen his moral resolve extremely early in his career. Everything King Arthur is remembered as didn't arise the minute he put on that costume. He's the sum of his parts, experiences and apprenticeship. An origin film is perhaps the best place to explore such outcomes.

Quote:

I was pointing out that Superman and Batman's mantra's BOTH come from canon. But they have BOTH also had examples within that canon in which that mantra was broken.

My point is that those instances don't erase the mantra.

Probably why it's a pointless discussion. Mantra or no these to pillars of the "no kill" rule do it all over media.

Quote:

I could go away and attempt to count as many Superman stories as I can in which Superman HAS a no kill policy, so that I could show you how insignificant a blip in the 'canon' the few instances in which he HAS broken that code are (and the differences in the aftermath to what we have here).

You could definitely try, however I would hope all those were origin stories for starters, then I would hope all those stories gave the character zero choice in the matter such as this film did, to really test this no kill vs no kill when given a choice(very different as I'm sure you know).
But yes, unless it's been retconned, I've seen superman address his no kill rule and then painfully break it in canon. Just like in this film, for me that puts the decision in the objective right. Subjectively I can understand why it sits poorly with a selection of opinionated people.

But like you said, that's how you feel. No point discussing in circles. I actually like you.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Superman: "I can only tell you what I believe, Diana. humankind has to be allowed to climb to its own destiny. We can't carry them there."Flash: "But that's what she's saying. What's the point? Why should they need us at all?"Superman: "To catch them if they fall."

When batman kissed a woman "plenty of people went wtf" cause he didn't roll like that.(not that he's gay but rather he's about his work).
What do I care if some people's preconceptions were shocked when the character(by way of the editors that have always been responsible for his official characterization) expanded on their fiction.
People being shocked doesn't change what a character is. This wasn't him just deciding to kill lois, it was him with is back against a wall and saving people best he could(in both instances).

When did that happen? I thought like Spider-Man not only did he have a nice rouges gallery, but he had the hottest chicks in his life. The ultimate heterosexual fanboy fantasy.

Quote:

No, it's why when batman kills(like in his last three films) people understand the gravity of the situation and the characters position. Batman all of a sudden behaving like wolverine or even tory stark all of a sudden is when you get the WTF's.
Same with superman(even though this movie is very much sold as a year one and we all ignore that bold fact), what he did put the situation and the characters position on the stand. It's why he didn't just make out with his half naked girlfriend(ie IM3) but cried. Heroes with no kill policies, don't contradict that by killing, they contradict that by breaking their ideals. They do what they can within their realm of powers, otherwise batman would lose sleep over the millions of gotham deaths he's "caused" and the deaths of his various partners. They do what they can. And yes even Batman has ended life for the greater good, go read some of his jla stories.

I'm not ignoring the fact that this is first time as Superman, but I feel like I'll just be repeating what I and many have said.

So, I'll just leave it at this: I don't care for this version of the character and any excitement that I had is pretty much gone. But, I am interested in how this current time more violent takes will affect the future.

When did that happen? I thought like Spider-Man not only did he have a nice rouges gallery, but he had the hottest chicks in his life. The ultimate heterosexual fanboy fantasy.

Let me restate, the batman that is criminally obsessed with cleaning the streets of his garbage town shouldn't be sobbing and pining over women the way hollywood loves it's leads to do. That being said, bruce wayne does kiss plenty of women.

Quote:

I'm not ignoring the fact that this is first time as Superman, but I feel like I'll just be repeating what I and many have said.

So, I'll just leave it at this: I don't care for this version of the character and any excitement that I had is pretty much gone. But, I am interested in how this current time more violent takes will affect the future.

One day we'll have to list out all the superman origin(first time in costume) stories where he faced a physical threat this fierce and didn't get violent. Of course excluding Earth one(that one doesn't exist to many). Then we'll list the ones where that year one superman was put int his position and made a very very different decision.
Point being, this issue needs more perspective. But that's me.

Sad to hear you lost excitement for this film, I lost excitement after the last one. All the studio can do is try and work with the majority, seems to be working so far. What's more I hated Begins, things changed.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Let me restate, the batman that is criminally obsessed with cleaning the streets of his garbage town shouldn't be sobbing and pining over women the way hollywood loves it's leads to do. That being said, bruce wayne does kiss plenty of women.

Well, I agree with the sobbing and pining part.

Quote:

One day we'll have to list out all the superman origin(first time in costume) stories where he faced a physical threat this fierce and didn't get violent. Of course excluding Earth one(that one doesn't exist to many). Then we'll list the ones where that year one superman was put int his position and made a very very different decision.
Point being, this issue needs more perspective. But that's me.

Sad to hear you lost excitement for this film, I lost excitement after the last one. All the studio can do is try and work with the majority, seems to be working so far. What's more I hated Begins, things changed.

What happened in Earth One? Haven't gotten around to reading that yet.

Even before Zod comes into play, I didn't like how they handled the character of Clark in this one. Within the story they showed, much of it comes from the relationship he had with Pa Kent.

I didn't really like Begins after thinking about it, but I like it the most of the Nolan films and TDK the least.